Reducing hospital stay for colorectal surgery in ERAS setting by means of perioperative patient education of expected day of discharge

Challenges and Elements Hindering the Adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols in Colorectal Surgery and Their Resolutions: A Systematic Review

This systematic review focuses on the various aspects of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementations, such as the various barriers, facilitators, and the role of teamwork. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and the Cochrane Library for studies published between the years 2018 and 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies assessing the various factors hindering the implementation of ERAS protocols on patients undergoing colorectal surgery. It collectively highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, continuing education, supervision, and patient involvement in achieving a successful implementation. Important findings include the positive impact of a performance improvement team, audits and feedback, and patient-centered approaches in reducing hospital length of stay, reducing inflammation, and improving patient outcomes. In addition, the study emphasizes the challenges of complete adherence to all ERAS components and suggests a simplified protocol to improve implementation. This paper also seeks to understudy the hurdles encountered during the adoption of the ERAS protocol and studies the various fundamental components of the protocol.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Approach: A Medical Complex Experience

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, multidisciplinary approach aimed at reducing organ failure and mitigating stress reactions in surgery patients. This investigation sought to assess available data concerning the benefits of ERAS protocols in improving patient outcomes for individuals undergoing significant colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The study involved 65 patients who underwent colectomy and lower anterior resection for rectal cancers. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 comprised 22 patients enrolled retrospectively who received the traditional protocol; Group 2 consisted of 20 patients enrolled prospectively who received the ERAS protocol; and Group 3 included 23 patients enrolled retrospectively who received the ERAS protocol. Each patient underwent a comprehensive history, physical examination, laboratory testing, computed tomography, MRI, and chest radiography.

RESULTS

Hospital stay durations were significantly shorter in both ERAS groups during the first and second cycles compared to the non-ERAS group (P<0.001, <0.001), with no significant difference between ERAS groups in either cycle. Delayed intestinal motility was significantly more pronounced in the non-ERAS group compared to ERAS groups in both cycles (P=0.005), with only five (22.7%) cases reported in the non-ERAS group.

CONCLUSION

ERAS implementation in the perioperative management of colorectal surgery patients is associated with improved outcomes and shorter recovery times. Implementation of ERAS in hospitals is feasible and beneficial.

Guidelines on perioperative optimization protocol for the adult patient 2023

OBJECTIVE

The French Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR)] aimed at providing guidelines for the implementation of perioperative optimization programs.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 29 experts from the SFAR was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Four fields were defined: 1) Generalities on perioperative optimization programs; 2) Preoperative measures; 3) Intraoperative measures and; 4) Postoperative measures. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines and analyzed using the GRADE® methodology. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method. As the GRADE® methodology could have been fully applied for the vast majority of questions, the recommendations were formulated using a "formalized expert recommendations" format.

RESULTS

The experts' work on synthesis and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 30 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 were found to have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and ten a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). For one recommendation, the GRADE methodology could not be fully applied, resulting in an expert opinion. Two questions did not find any response in the literature. After two rounds of rating and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement among the experts was obtained to provide 30 recommendations for the elaboration and/or implementation of perioperative optimization programs in the highest number of surgical fields.

Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Suspected T1 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Local en bloc resection of pT1 colon cancer has been gaining acceptance during the last few years. In the absence of histological risk factors, the risk of lymph-node metastases (LNM) is negligible and does not outweigh the morbidity and mortality of an oncologic resection. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) has proved to be an effective and safe technique for removing complex benign polyps. The role of CAL-WR for the primary resection of suspected T1 colon cancer has to be established.

METHODS

This retrospective study aimed to determine the radicality and safety of CAL-WR as a local en bloc resection technique for a suspected T1 colon cancer. Therefore, the study identified patients in whom high-grade dysplasia or a T1 colon carcinoma was suspected based on histology and/or macroscopic assessment, requiring an en bloc resection.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 57 patients who underwent CAL-WR for a suspected macroscopic polyp or polyps with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or T1 colon carcinoma. For 27 of these 57 patients, a pT1 colon carcinoma was diagnosed at pathologic examination after CAL-WR. Histological risk factors for LNM were present in three cases, and 70% showed deep submucosal invasion (Sm2/Sm3). For patients with pT1 colon carcinoma, an overall R0-resection rate of 88.9% was achieved. A minor complication was noted in one patient (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAL-WR procedure is an effective and safe technique for suspected high-grade dysplasia or T1-colon carcinoma. It may fill the gap for tumors that are macroscopic suspected for deep submucosal invasion, providing more patients an organ-preserving treatment option.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Accelerated 23-h enhanced recovery protocol for colon surgery: the CHASE-study

The introduction of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program has radically improved postoperative outcomes in colorectal surgery. Optimization of ERAS program to an accelerated recovery program may further improve these said outcomes. This single-center, prospective study investigated the feasibility and safety of a 23-h accelerated enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for colorectal cancer patients (ASA I-II) undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery. The 23-h accelerated ERP consisted of adjustments in pre-, peri- and postoperative care; this was called the CHASE-protocol. This group was compared to a retrospective cohort of colorectal cancer patients who received standard ERAS care. Patients were discharged within 23 h after surgery if they met the discharge criteria. Primary outcome was the rate of the successful discharge within 23 h. Successful discharge within the CHASE-cohort was realized in 33 out of the 41 included patients (80.5%). Compared to the retrospective cohort (n = 75), length of stay was significantly shorter in the CHASE-cohort (p = 0.000), and the readmission rate was higher (p = 0.051). Complication rate was similar, severe complications were observed less frequently in the CHASE-cohort (4.9% vs. 8.0%). Findings from this study support the feasibility and safety of the accelerated 23-h accelerated ERP with the CHASE-protocol in selected patients.

The Nuts and Bolts of Implementing a Modified ERAS Protocol for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: Group Practice vs. Solo Practice

AIM: The ERAS protocol consists of multiple items that aim to improve the outcomes of patients receiving surgery. Adhering to the protocol is difficult. We wondered whether surgeons practicing the ERAS protocol in a group would improve patient outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent colorectal resection for benign disease or malignancy from November 2017 to December 2018 were collected and reviewed retrospectively. According to the physician’s ward round strategy, the patients were categorized into two groups, either by solo practice or group practice. Results: This study enrolled 724 patients and divided them into two groups according to the practice method: group practice (n = 256) and solo practice (n = 468). The group practice cohort had less postoperative morbidity (14.0% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.048) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (mean: 6.6 ± 3.2 vs. 8.6 ± 5.5, p < 0.05) than the solo practice cohort. Group practice (p < 0.001), natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) procedure (p < 0.001), and blood loss >50 mL (p = 0.039) significantly affected discharge within 5 days postoperatively in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Group practice based on a modified ERAS protocol shortens postoperative hospital stays with fewer morbidities compared with solo practice in which patients receive elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization Discovery of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), a new clinical surgical concept, has been applied in many surgical disciplines with good clinical results for the past 20 years. Bibliometric analysis is an effective method to quantitatively evaluate the academic productivity. This report aimed to perform a scientometric analysis of the ERAS research status and research hotspots.

Methods

Comprehensive scientific mapping analysis of a wide range of literature metadata using the scientometric tools, including the Bibliometrix R Package, Biblioshiny, and CiteSpace. Data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database of original articles from 2001 to 2020. Specific indicators and maps were analyzed to show the co-authorship, co-institute, co-country, co-citation, and international cooperation. Automatic literature screening, unsupervised cluster filtering, and topic cluster identification methods were used to display the conceptual framework and thematic evolution.

Results

A total of 1,403 research projects drafted by 6,966 authors and published in 413 sources were found. There was an exponential growth in the number of publications on ERAS. There were 709 collaborations between authors from different countries, and the US, China, and the UK had the greatest number of publications. The WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, located in Bradford’s Law 1, had the highest number of published articles (n = 1,276; total citations = 3,193). CiteSpace network analysis revealed 15 highly correlated cluster ERAS studies, and the earliest study was on colonic surgery, and ERAS was recently applied in cardiac surgery. The etiology of ERAS is constantly evolving, with surgery and length of hospital as the main topics. Meta-analyses and perioperative care have tended to decline.

Conclusion

This is the first scientometric analysis of ERAS to provide descriptive quantitative indicators. This can provide a better understanding of how the field has evolved over the past 20 years, help identify research trends, and provide insights and research directions for academic researchers, policymakers, and medical practitioners who want to collaborate in these areas in the future.